USMC restructuring - a vindication of UK Strike?

[ArmChairCivvy]

what the AAC found in a EX last year is even with IFF it was hard to pick out enemy units on a fast moving battle field in the forests of Europe

On the other hand, the AH rationale against using only CAS, by fast jets (err, which can take them down if the Oppos are flying) is that they can loiter in the 'approximate' area and then 'pop up' above the tree line, for the kill... with a ripple launch

I will do a piece in the "Future form of the Army", thread with what I believe a 2+2 organisation should look like

a large list IMO from things like bridging to 120mm direct fire to brimstone over watch down to the standard Reece and IFVs.

- those comments will be key to this new piece... from LJ

[SW1]

If a uk strike brigade was configured using boxer at its core along the lines of a US Stryker bridge then it makes more sense. At the minute is a jumble. But in essence the answer to the premise of the original question for the uk is I think yes.

The uk doesn’t have the funds to support and generate sufficient deployable mass of 70+ ton tracked vehicles in any reasonable time frame. The fact the army went off down the warrior and Ajax rabbit hole 10 years ago, boxer 20 years ago and still has nothing to show for it tells us everything we need to know about the association with reality in this regard.

They struggled logistically to move a single armoured brigade from Kuwait to Basra in 2003 and have cut logistics ever since. I think the idea of moving an armoured brigade let alone 2 from the uk to somewhere east of Germany in any reasonable timeframe is consigned to history or a very big budget change we can all judge which is more likely

[ArmChairCivvy]

They struggled logistically to move a single armoured brigade from Kuwait to Basra in 2003

I think there was some water in between... in keeping with the thread header?

and have cut logistics ever since

Nicht gut, I say, I say

[whitelancer]

Turning the Strike Brigades into effective stand alone formations is in my opinion unaffordable particularly if money is to be spent on the AI Brigades to keep them effective. The idea of a 2+2 structure is just not viable, it would be better to come up with a structure that makes use of what is available or already in the pipeline without requiring major additional funding.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The idea of a 2+2 structure is just not viable

Glad that someone finally said something that I can disagree with

[whitelancer]

Be boring if we all agreed, no fun at all!
Well I wont say the Army will not end up with a 2+2 structure, though going on past performance I wouldn't count on it. What I will say is the chances of them being effective formations, properly equipped and manned is remote.

[Lord Jim]

it would be better to come up with a structure that makes use of what is available or already in the pipeline without requiring major additional funding.

I came up with such a restructuring a while back, ,but whatever route the Army chooses it is going to need major additional resources to make it ft for purpose and that is the major common issue. To fund the restructuring the Warrior CSP would be cancelled and the Ajax buy reduced to less than 200 vehicles, to get the ball rolling for an increase Boxer buy and the additional versions needed for at least the first two Brigades.

1st (UK) Division would under go a major restructuring as I have list above making all it composite unit cadre style with only the HQ and one Company/Squadron being permanently manned and given a new wartime role being linked to the formations in 3rd (UK) Division and so on.

[SW1]

Turning the Strike Brigades into effective stand alone formations is in my opinion unaffordable particularly if money is to be spent on the AI Brigades to keep them effective. The idea of a 2+2 structure is just not viable, it would be better to come up with a structure that makes use of what is available or already in the pipeline without requiring major additional funding.

So scrap the AI brigades and make 4 strike brigades.

[Tempest414]

So scrap the AI brigades and make 4 strike brigades.

Or go for a Strike division of 4 Brigades and standard division keeping the MBT's we can't let the MBT's go on someones wet dream

[SW1]

So scrap the AI brigades and make 4 strike brigades.

Or go for a Strike division of 4 Brigades and standard division keeping the MBT's we can't let the MBT's go on someones wet dream

We’re going down to what maybe 120 MBTs? perhaps we will have to enter a sort of hybrid option where there held centrally and assigned to a strike brigade as and when required for niche missions.

[Lord Jim]

And that brings me back to the proposal in the "Future firm of the Army" thread where we would end up with three "Shrike"/Mechanised Brigades and an Armoured Cavalry Brigade of two Challenger 2 (Armoured) Regiments and two Ajax (Recce) Regiments.

Maybe we should move this over there as the references to the USMC are getting very thin on the ground?

[ArmChairCivvy]

held centrally and assigned to a strike brigade as and when required for niche missions.

... like the 22 Streetfighter kitted (max. number) if you want to enter a city?

btw, LJ above seconded... it is this missing facility to x-ref between threads that gives us.., hmmm, somewhat lacking agility.

[J. Tattersall]

Belatedly veering back onto track see recent article (The USMC is changing. Why should we care?) in The Wavell Room https://wavellroom.com/2020/04/21/the-u ... d-we-care/ with its observation that

.....at a time when defence budgets are vulnerable to further cuts, it seems far-fetched that European armies will be able to make up for the shortfall in heavy armour. Experts in the UK, for example, are advocating for a lighter British Army, ideal for rapid deployments to Europe’s periphery in response to more limited scale crises.

Interesting to ponder Strike in that context.